I found this imaginary LA public transport map, created by Damien Goodmon, on the LA Curbed site.
Like most Angelenos, he understands the crucial role of the 405 as the main transportation artery of the Southland. If one were to build a train to carry commuters from the San Fernando Valley to the South Bay, life in LA would improve immeasurably.
If every corner of the city were serviced by Mr. Goodmon’s proposed system, we would see a marked improvement in air quality. That alone is reason to pursue this idea.
Here in Van Nuys 
double-decking key freeways? what, so they can pancake on us in the next big earthquake? are you joking? also, a basic, elementary rule of transportation planning is that auto traffic will fill up any extra capacity you build. more roadway will only create more freeway parking lots.
this map is BRILLIANT. it’s a vision. a dream. and all great ideas start like that – big, crazy, visionary dreams. rock on, damien goodmon.
LikeLike
Double decking key freyways would cost a fraction and benefit so many more Angelenos. Personally, I look for a neighborhood that is poorly served by public transit – keeps the crime down and keeps things nice, quiet, and expensive there.
LikeLike
Saying existing transit line usage is an indication of demand for new lines is like saying not very many people want to live in Beverly Hills because so many more live in the South Bronx or Bhopal.
In the meantime, let’s all pray for $5.45/gal gas.
LikeLike
What’s so ridiculous about it? Half of this map is already built, or being built.
LikeLike
I live in the Valley and work south of the pass. Having to drive the 405 is not just a hassle, it’s expensive. Why not a rail system that shoots down along the freeway like the BART in SF? Tried taking the bus but it took so long and made so many stops, I had to leave my home an hour earlier. I can go downtown but then I don’t work there. But the main library’s nice! Maybe they have a good book about wise public transportation planning . . . ?
LikeLike
If making a map like this a reality will require us to (gasp!) disinvest in cars (gasp!) – so much the better.
Automobile traffic has too much say in how our transportation dollars are spent. We can have just as many people creating just as much wealth without having so many god damned cars on the roads.
I really like this map, and I would vote for the fool who would propose it to residents of Los Angeles.
LikeLike
This map is more expansive than the 1980 map. And much of the 1980 map has been built, albeit with cheaper Metrolink service than Metro Rail.
LikeLike
That looks awfully similar to the map proposed to voters back in 1980 when they approved a 1/2-cent sales tax.
We need everyone to work together: from the MTA all the way to Washington, D.C., to make that happen.
LikeLike
I would be inclined to go with Pete’s estimate. It will cost that much to build a system that expansive. Maybe even more.
The only way we realistically can build a system that you see on the map is to use the Sprinter test and hit up every entity that gave money to the North San Diego County Transit District to build that line.
Some of the projects on the map aren’t needed. One of the most interesting things about transit lines is that the best indication of their ridership is not to follow automobile congestion patterns but … existing transit ridership.
I often hear plans of centering rail lines or monorails around our freeway network. It wouldn’t help, since freeway bus ridership is very small. Oddly enough, the Harbor Transitway is the only north-south service between Crenshaw Boulevard and the Blue Line that has 4-digit ridership, and it’s also a service people are avoiding. The only places a freeway service would work are where there are no faster alternatives available, such as the 405 and 605 freeways.
The Green Line is an interesting case because this is a project that got almost everything wrong and still manages to draw an astounding 40,000. And I’m not even talking about bypassing LAX. That’s actually one of the best things to happen to the Green Line, since an airport extension would have been a failure. The Green Line ends a mile short of major transit destinations on both ends: South Bay Galleria on the west, and the Norwalk Civic and County Center area on the east. It also does not have a stop at Western Avenue, which is next door to Southwest College. That’s 3,000-5,000 boardings right there. There’s no access for the city of Paramount. That’s about 2,000-3,000 lost. There’s no stop at Atlantic Boulevard. That’s at least another thousand there. The Green Line has no complementary developments except for the strip mall at Rosa Parks station and a college that doesn’t have a stop. Yet what brings riders to the Green Line? Speed. The Green Line takes about 30 minutes to get across much of the county. A comparable trip on a bus is 1 1/2 hours. Considering the infrequent bus service south of the 105 freeway, the Green Line has a very wide catch area, from Manchester and Firestone to the north to Artesia Boulevard in the south.
It’s important to consider these catch areas, because you can narrow down the major investments that need to be built.
And, again, the most effective rail plans would mimic the busiest bus routes, and then narrow them down by catch area so not all of the rail lines are clustered together and you end up building twice the rail for half the productivity. Further, winnow down service by placing holds on eligible lines until the next closest line exceeds capacity.
MTA releases overall monthly bus ridership statistics, but the agency’s library has these phone-book-sized tomes with highly detailed line-by-line volume and cost data. Alas, the most current volume was from 1999, and MTA stopped producing them (quarterly releases) as a cost-cutting measure.
If you’re curious, the Top 10 bus trunk routes* are as follows, but I’m not certain about the order of the last five routes:
1. Wilshire/Whittier boulevards (18/20/21/720)
2. Vermont Avenue (204/754)
3. Olympic Boulevard/Northeast Los Angeles (28/83/84/85/328)
4. Santa Monica Boulevard (4/304)
5. Venice Boulevard (33/333)
6. Western Avenue (207/757)
7. Pacific/Long Beach boulevards (60/360)
8. Broadway (45/745)
9. Pico Boulevard/East First Street (30/31/330)
10. Avalon Boulevard/Seventh Street/Virgil Avenue (26/51/52/352)
*Trunk lines refer to a series of routes that make up a line. While MTA’s ridership figures are detailed, they are not broken down by each individual route. Ridership by line refers to every route that makes up the trunk. That explains why Olympic Boulevard is so high when it is not apparent by figures alone (every Olympic bus changes its number downtown to an 80-series, so one straight run goes from Mid-City or Century City to Eagle Rock or Glendale College).
LikeLike
I just wonder where the price estimate of $40 billion came from?
LikeLike
This map reminds me of the “dreambook” that LACTC/RTD presented to voters in 1980 to get them to vote for the transit sales tax. The only difference is that the price tag is arbitrarily lowered by 80%.
$40 billion is a whole assload of money. It’s one thing to drop $3-5 billion on a Wilshire subway that will at least provide a transportation benefit far in excess of the level of expenditure, but this is ridiculous.
If substantial new expenditures on fixed-guideway transit are to occur in Los Angeles, the means of financing them will have to be tolling, including congestion charges. Unfortunately, the political will isn’t there for that–yet.
LikeLike
Yawn. The proposal would make Los angeles even more unliveable. I’m afraid you don’t understand the nature of transit or transit funding when you claim either QoL or air quality benefits. A few quick math exercises. Witin the region described either 78% or 87% of all transportation expenditures for infrastructure and subsidy already go to transit. Just to operate the system described above would require tripling Prop A & C revenues. Care to guess how many automobiles would be sold in LA County when Ventura costs $40/$1000 less? How much do you think the system pictured would cost? Nevermind, no matter how much it costs the project would require a complete disinvestment in roads. Not just no new roads but ignore existing roads and even take away capacity to accomote the plan. Even if the plan could be accomplished in 20 years and quarduples transit usage natural growth in mobility would wipe out twice as much as that. understand I’m not making value judgements, I’m just telling you that this cannot improve transportation and cannot improve air quality. Ever, at all, under any circumstances. Really. Sorry.
LikeLike
Yawn. The proposal would make Los angeles even more unliveable. I’m afraid you don’t understand the nature of transit or transit funding when you claim either QoL or air quality benefits. A few quick math exercises. Witin the region described either 78% or 87% of all transportation expenditures for infrastructure and subsidy already go to transit. Just to operate the system described above would require tripling Prop A & C revenues. Care to guess how many automobiles would be sold in LA County when Ventura costs $40/$1000 less? How much do you think the system pictured would cost? Nevermind, no matter how much it costs the project would require a complete disinvestment in roads. Not just no new roads but ignore existing roads and even take away capacity to accomote the plan. Even if the plan could be accomplished in 20 years and quarduples transit usage natural growth in mobility would wipe out twice as much as that. understand I’m not making value judgements, I’m just telling you that this cannot improve transportation and cannot improve air quality. Ever, at all, under any circumstances. Really. Sorry.
LikeLike